[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 86 (Monday, May 5, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24414-24416]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-11656]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-201-802]


Gray Portland Cement and Clinker From Mexico: Amended Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 5, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nithya Nagarajan or Dorothy Woster, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, 
Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3793.

Scope of the Review

    The products covered by this review include gray portland cement 
and clinker. Gray portland cement is a hydraulic cement and the primary 
component of concrete. Clinker, an intermediate material product 
produced when manufacturing cement, has no use other than being ground 
into finished cement. Gray portland cement is currently classifiable 
under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item number 2523.29 and 
cement clinker is currently classifiable under HTS item number 2523.10. 
Gray portland cement has also been entered under HTS item number 
2523.90 as ``other hydraulic cements.'' The HTS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and U.S. Customs Service purposes only. Our 
written description of the scope of the order remains dispositive.

Amendment of Final Results

    On April 9, 1997, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the final results of the administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from Mexico 
(62 FR 17148). This review covered CEMEX S.A de C.V (CEMEX), and its 
affiliate, Cementos de Chihuahua (CDC), manufacturers/exporters of the 
subject merchandise to the United States. The period of review (POR) is 
August 1, 1994 through July 31, 1995.
    On April 8, 1997, and April 17, 1997, counsel for the respondent, 
CEMEX, filed allegations of clerical errors with regard to these final 
results. On April 18, 1997, counsel for CDC filed allegations of 
clerical errors with regard to these final results. On April 9, 1997, 
counsel for petitioners, the Southern Tier Cement Committee, filed a 
submission agreeing with CEMEX's allegation submitted April 8, 1997; 
petitioners' submission also contained additional allegations of 
clerical errors with regard to these final results. On April 10, 1997, 
CEMEX filed a submission agreeing that the Department should correct 
the errors noted by petitioners' April 9, 1996 letter. The allegations 
and rebuttal comments of both parties were filed in a timely fashion. 
The Department, upon review of the allegations and comments, agrees 
with respondent and petitioners and is hereby issuing an amended final, 
based on the corrections of these ministerial errors.
    First, respondent CEMEX contended that the Department made an 
arithmetic error when it converted the value of sales to the United 
States reported in short tons into metric tons. Respondent alleged that 
the Department should have divided net price for the product sold in 
the United States by the short ton/metric ton conversion coefficient 
rather than multiplying by the coefficient.
    Petitioners did not object to respondent's allegation. Petitioners 
noted, however, that the correct conversion factor is .907194 metric 
tons per short ton, and that this conversion factor should be 
incorporated into the Department's amended final results. Respondent 
did not object to petitioners' allegation, and the Department has used 
the conversion factor of .907194 metric tons per short ton in the 
amended final results.
    Second, CEMEX alleged that the Department overstated the 
constructed export price (CEP) profit rate by continuing to use further 
manufactured sales in the calculation of CEP profit without making any 
adjustment for those U.S. expenses associated with further 
manufacturing. CEMEX suggested that the Department correct this 
inadvertent error by dividing total U.S. expenses and revenue in the 
CEP profit calculation by the percentage which CEP sales comprise of 
total U.S. CEP and further manufactured sales. Petitioners have not 
objected in principle to CEMEX's allegation, however, they have 
objected to CEMEX's proposed methodology for calculating CEP profit. 
Petitioners have provided an alternative suggestion which adjusts total 
U.S. movement expenses (USMOVEH) and total U.S. indirect selling 
expenses (INDEXPU) to account for those expenses associated with the 
further manufactured sales.
    In the final results of this review, the Department determined that 
the value added of U.S. further manufactured sales of concrete 
substantially exceeded the value added of the subject merchandise. The 
weighted-average CEP for non-further manufactured CEP sales was 
substituted as the CEP for U.S. further manufactured sales. The 
Department agrees with CEMEX that the Department overstated the CEP 
profit rate in the final results by continuing to use further 
manufactured sales in the calculation of CEP profit without making any 
adjustment for those U.S. expenses associated with further 
manufacturing. The Department agrees with CEMEX and petitioners' that 
this is a ministerial error and has corrected this error for the 
amended final results by including expenses associated with all CEP 
sales in the calculation of CEP profit based on petitioners' suggested 
calculation.
    Third, CEMEX claims that the Department erred in excluding home 
market Type II transactions and sales failing the arm's length test 
from the

[[Page 24415]]

calculation of CEP profit. We agree with respondent that sales outside 
the ordinary course of trade should be included in the Department's 
calculation of total actual profit and have corrected this. However, 
with respect to sales failing the arm's length test, we disagree with 
CEMEX that we made a ministerial error in excluding these sales.
    Fourth, CEMEX alleged that the variable overhead factor (VOH) for 
CEMEX's cost of production contains a mathematical error. CEMEX alleged 
that the Department incorrectly used the 1994 VOH factor for Type II 
cement for the 12 month calendar year in the calculation of the 
difference in merchandise (DIFMER) adjustment, as opposed to the 
average factor corresponding to August through December 1994, the five 
month period in 1994 subject to review. CEMEX noted that all other cost 
of production factors for 1994 were calculated based on the five month 
period in 1994 subject to review. Petitioners have objected to CEMEX's 
allegation stating that this is a methodological issue and cannot be 
considered a ministerial error. The Department agrees with CEMEX; in 
the calculation of DIFMER for these amended final results, the 
Department intended to use the VOH factor relating to the five month 
period in 1994, subject to review, consistent with all other cost of 
production factors used in both the preliminary and final results of 
this review. Therefore, we have corrected this ministerial error.
    Fifth, CEMEX alleged that the Department failed to adjust certain 
fixed overhead (FOH) costs as intended. CEMEX alleged that the 
Department properly incorporated the increase in monthly reported 1995 
FOH costs which were recalculated during verification to take into 
account additional depreciation expenses. However, CEMEX noted that the 
Department failed to revise total cost of manufacturing (TOTCOM) and 
general and administrative (GNA) expenses for cost of production to 
account for the change in FOH costs. Petitioners object to CEMEX's 
allegation stating that this is a methodological issue and cannot be 
considered to be a ministerial error. The Department agrees with CEMEX 
that it inadvertently omitted the additional depreciation costs from 
the calculation of TOTCOM and has, therefore, revised the TOTCOM and 
GNA figures in cost of production for the amended final results of this 
review.
    Sixth, CDC alleged that the Department should convert the entered 
value, reported in U.S. dollars per short ton, to U.S. dollars per 
metric ton before calculating importer-specific dumping rates based on 
duties due calculated in dollars per metric tons. Petitioners have not 
objected to CDC's allegation of a ministerial error. The Department 
agrees with CDC, and has divided entered value by .907194 in the 
calculation of these amended final results to convert entered value to 
dollars per metric ton.
    CDC also alleged that the Department should calculate a single 
percentage margin for all of CDC's U.S. sales, as opposed to a value-
based importer-specific rate for the CEP sales and a volume-based rate 
(unit margin) for export price (EP) sales. We disagree with respondent 
that this is a ministerial error. The calculation of importer-specific 
dumping rates is a methodological issue. Consequently, it is 
inappropriate to change the methodology to calculate an importer-
specific rate for EP sales at this time as a ministerial error.
    Lastly, petitioners alleged that the Department made a ministerial 
error in the calculation of credit expense for CDC. Petitioners alleged 
that the Department should have subtracted the date of shipment from 
the date of payment in the calculation of average credit days 
outstanding. In addition, the percentage for credit expense in the 
Department's calculations should have been multiplied by the gross unit 
price for the product sold in the United States minus discounts and 
rebates. Second, petitioners alleged that the Department erred in the 
calculation of the DIFMER adjustment. For the months of February, 
March, and April 1995, petitioners alleged that the Department 
misplaced the decimal point in the DIFMER percentage. Respondent has 
not objected to petitioners' allegation of ministerial errors. After a 
review of petitioners' allegation, we agree and have corrected these 
errors for the amended final results.
    Pursuant to section 353.28 of the Department's regulations, parties 
to the proceeding will have 5 days after the date of publication of 
this notice to notify the Department of any new ministerial or clerical 
errors, as well as, 5 days thereafter to rebut any comments by parties.

Amended Final Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we have determined that the following 
margin exists:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
           Manufacturer/Exporter               Time period     (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CEMEX S.A de C.V..........................    8/1/94-7/31/95       73.69
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual 
differences between sales to the United States and normal value may 
vary from the percentages stated above. The Department will issue 
appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective, 
upon publication of this notice of amended final results of review for 
all shipments of gray portland cement and clinker from Mexico, entered, 
or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the 
publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) 
The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates for 
those firms as stated above; (2) for previously investigated companies 
not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the 
company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the 
exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or the original 
investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be 
the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of 
the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other 
manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 61.35 percent for gray 
portland cement and clinker, the all others rate established in the 
less than fair value investigation. See Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from Mexico, 55 
FR 29244 (1990).
    These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
until publication of the final results of the next administrative 
review.
    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate regarding the 
reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this 
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with section 353.34(d) of the Department's 
regulations. Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials 
or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure 
to comply with the regulations

[[Page 24416]]

and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    This amendment of final results of administrative review and 
notice are in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 
U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.

    Dated: April 25, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-11656 Filed 5-2-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P